Xác thực OTP và tạo tài khoản ảo ACB

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral context: the OTP is user-supplied, the agent must solicit it and never fabricate one. It does not spell out success side effects (account creation) or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two front-loaded sentences that lead with the step position and the critical constraint. The bilingual repetition is justified for the audience, though it doubles the length without adding information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema step in a multi-step flow, the description covers the essential safety constraint and sequencing. It omits what success produces (the virtual account) and error handling, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (code, acb_request_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the OTP is user-supplied but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's pattern/length constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies this as the OTP step of the bank-linking flow ("Bước 2/4"), and the title adds that it creates an ACB virtual account. It is distinguishable from siblings by its explicit step position, though the description body itself never states the outcome (virtual account creation) that the title carries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Strong, explicit when-to-use guidance: the agent MUST ask the user for the OTP and must never guess it. It does not name alternatives (e.g. monapay_notification_verify_otp) or state the prerequisite that acb_request_id comes from monapay_link_bank_start, but the core operational guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.